Skip to comments.
Today in US military history: FROM THE HALLS OF MONTEZUMA
Unto the Breach ^
| 12 September 2019
| Chris Carter
Posted on 09/12/2019 10:10:31 AM PDT by fugazi
Todays post is in honor of four 1st Battalion, 2d Infantry Regiment soldiers killed in action east of Loc Ninh, Republic of Vietnam on this day in 1968. Lost were 1st Lt. Lester L. Wood (24 years old, from Dallas), 1st Lt. James A. Smith (22, Blackfoot, Idaho), Staff Sgt. Larry R. Sims (23, Rolling Hills, Ill.), and Pfc. Phillip L. Tank (20, Ecorse, Mich.).
1847: From the halls of Montezuma
Gen. Winfield Scotts army of Marines and soldiers begin their attack on the castle Chapultepec, sitting 200 feet above in Mexico City. During the battle, 90 percent of Marine commissioned and non-commissioned officers are killed by snipers, memorialized by the blood stripe on the Marine Corps Dress Blue trousers. Participating in the engagement are many young officers such as Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Stonewall Jackson who will face each other in the Civil War.
1918: The Battle of Saint-Mihiel, the first and only U.S.-led and executed operation of World War I, begins when Gen. John J. Pershings American Expeditionary Force attacks Gen. Johannes Georg von der Marwitz Imperial German Army forces. Brig. Gen. William Billy Mitchell leads an armada of nearly 1,500 warplanes during the offensive the largest air force assembled (at that point) in history. On the ground, artillery and tanks(commanded by Lt. Col. George Patton) join the infantry in devastating the German lines. In just three days, over 22,000 Germans are killed, wounded, or
(Excerpt) Read more at victoryinstitute.net ...
TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: militaryhistory
It would be fascinating to see how the early days of the Civil War would have gone like had Lincoln not replaced Gen. Scott with Gen. McClellan. Both commanders had their pros and cons... while Little Mac whipped the troops into fighting shape he was also overly cautious.
1
posted on
09/12/2019 10:10:31 AM PDT
by
fugazi
To: fugazi
Perhaps, but the same could be said for Gen PT Beauregard. Washington DC was totally defenseless after the first battle of Manassas. That could have been a very quick win for Southern Independence.
To: fugazi
1814: Battle of North Point
Should be on the list
3
posted on
09/12/2019 10:36:03 AM PDT
by
silverleaf
(Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
To: fugazi
Im still not sure which side McClellan thought he was on.
4
posted on
09/12/2019 10:40:14 AM PDT
by
Vaquero
( Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
To: Vaquero
I think the reality was that no one really wanted to fight. They simply wanted the war to be over.
Only Sherman and Grant were willing to make heinous attacks toward that objective.
The Southerners simply wanted to be left alone to determine their own destiny.
To: fugazi
6
posted on
09/12/2019 11:16:06 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(Time is short Eternity is long It is reasonable that this short life be lived in light of eternity)
To: fugazi
Scott had devised the Anaconda Plan to deal with the South.
Blockade and use the waterways to keep the South penned in.
Grant used this strategy on land. Get a hold of the Army of Northern Virginia and not let go. Choke it until it gives up the fight.
Only the aristocracy of the South wanted to fight the Union for it's right to control their own destiny. Most of the citizens who had grown up with slavery and didn't own any slaves fought for States Rights vs a Central Government.
7
posted on
09/12/2019 12:42:35 PM PDT
by
Wizdum
(The Dems are not afraid a wall won't work, the Dems are TERRIFIED a wall WILL work.)
To: Gamecock
Haha. I splashed on the Slide For Life and had to come out of the water with my hands on my head singing that.
8
posted on
09/12/2019 1:17:30 PM PDT
by
real saxophonist
(Yeah, well, y'know that's just like, uh... your opinion, man.)
To: fugazi
Don’t forget Shores of Tripoli. We’ve been fighting the damn muslims for as long as we’ve been a country.
9
posted on
09/12/2019 1:19:28 PM PDT
by
real saxophonist
(Yeah, well, y'know that's just like, uh... your opinion, man.)
To: real saxophonist
10
posted on
09/12/2019 1:23:07 PM PDT
by
M Kehoe
(DRAIN THE SWAMP! BUILD THE WALL!)
To: Wizdum
I agree to the point that the ability to simply walk away is the ultimate of States Rights. The ability to avoid a fight and be left alone to live in peace is the most fundamental of human rights.
Controlling one’s own destiny is vital to being able to simply walk away. Sometimes, a bully will not allow you to walk away. Sometimes you have to fight. Sometimes, you get your butt kicked, but you still did the right thing by standing up for yourself.
To: fugazi
My great, great, great, grandfather, Orlando Levy, was one of the soldiers assaulting Chapultepec castle. He was a Private in Company F, 1st Regiment of South Carolina Volunteers.
12
posted on
09/13/2019 5:52:52 AM PDT
by
ops33
(SMSgt, USAF, Retired)
To: ops33
My great, great, great, grandfather, Orlando Levy, was one of the soldiers assaulting Chapultepec castle. He was a Private in Company F, 1st Regiment of South Carolina Volunteers.
Wow, that's amazing that the story of his service has been passed down through that many generations. How many of us are descended from Civil War, 1812, Revolutionary War, and other conflicts and don't even know? That's a shame.
13
posted on
09/13/2019 7:10:25 AM PDT
by
fugazi
To: beancounter13
I agree to the point that the ability to simply walk away is the ultimate of States Rights. The ability to avoid a fight and be left alone to live in peace is the most fundamental of human rights.
I agree whole-heartedly. But where do you draw a functional line to limit states coming and going? A union should be held together by something, and I agree that compelling a union by force can't be the binding factor. If we had a tyrannical federal government (I mean worse than it has become in recent years), I would like to have the ability to secede and not be invaded. But what about states that have lost their minds splitting off because they don't like how an election went? The South had every right to secede, morally right or wrong as their reasons may have been. I also understand going to war to preserve the union. I'm just glad I didn't have to make the decisions back then.
14
posted on
09/13/2019 7:16:12 AM PDT
by
fugazi
To: fugazi
Your point is understood and could easily be made today with respect to recent suggestions that California could secede. I would wholeheartedly support that right as long as the people from California also recognized the rights of certain areas to remain much the same as West Virginia chose to remain in 1861.
Would I miss the small sliver along the coast that actually left? Of course not! I would be too busy working trade deals with them. That many people without any means of feeding themselves would become really hungry really fast!
To: beancounter13
I think far-left states like California want to make noise about secession, and perhaps it would be good strategy on Washington's part to call their bluff, knowing that Calif. doesn't actually want to carry it out. I imagine the rural portions essential to survival as a country would split off, as you point out, and remain with the Union (as W. Virginia did 150-odd years ago). Then the secessionists would find themselves in an even more strategically untenable position than they would have been if the state remained as-is. Millions of dependents with nowhere near enough taxpayers to support them -- much less a terrible lack of resources.
Now if Montana or Texas split, that would be a different story.
16
posted on
09/13/2019 1:55:39 PM PDT
by
fugazi
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson